________________
94
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA Viśvanātha comes down heavily on Mammata's definition of poetry. Subtle, forceful and destructive method as seen in Mahimā seems to be continued by Visvanātha, who has taken Mammata to task for every word used in the definition of poetry. He has, as it were, mounted the definition of poetry in the K.P. on a grinding wheel. We will first give Visvanātha's views and then try to evaluate his observations. He first picks up the word 'a-dosau' used as an attribute of 'sabdárthau'. He observes that if we take only those word and sense which are completely free from blemishes as poetry, then such examples of poetry as - "nyakkāro hy ayam eva...” will fail to pass the test of being poetry at all, because the blemish viz. 'vidheya-avimarśa' is very much there and hence what is taken as an illustration of “uttama” poetry by aesthetes will have to be discarded as 'no poetry or 'a-kavya’. Thus 'a-vyāptidosa' embraces the definition as coined by Mammața. Continuing with his relentless assault Viśvanātha observes that it cannot be held that a part with blemish should be taken as no-poetry (i.e. a-kavya) and a portion with dhvani should be taken as uttama-kavya or highest type of poetry. For this way, in a tug of war the particular piece of poetry will neither remain poetry nor ‘no-poetry'. Again, it cannot be said that such blemishes as śrutidusta mar only a portion of poetry. Actually such blemishes mar the beauty of a whole piece of poetry. But, in fact, if they do not harm the cause of rasa i.e. aesthetic relish, they are no blemishes at all. The fact of being a blemish depends on its being harmful to rasa. If such blemishes as "śruti-dusta' harm the cause of rasa, then they are positively to be reckoned as blemishes. Precisely for this reason, the aesthetes have thought of the position of 'nitya-anitya-dosa' i.e. of blemishes being all-time blemishes or being occasional blemishes. If we do not accept this position then poetry will either have no scope at all, or will have very little scope, if at all, because poetry being absolutely free from any fault whatsoever is a rare dream ! For Viśvanātha, the particular example, viz. “nyakkārohy ayam eva”, etc. is excellent poetry for the blemish viz. vidheya-avimars'a is of no consequence at all as it does not interrupt the enjoyment of relish. But, observes Viśvanātha, that for Mammata this poem will be no-poetry - i.e. 'a-kavya' as the blemish is very much there and he wants ‘sabdárthau' to be “a-dośau”.
Continuing his tirade against 'a-dosau', Viśvanātha further observes that, in case if by 'a-dośau' is meant “işad-dosau” i.e. poetry having negligible amount of blamish, then such poetry which is absolutely free from blemish will cease to be poetry. Now if the negative suggester i.e. nan "T" in 'a' (= '37') is taken as “smallest amount of fault if at all present", then such accidental attributes as "blemish, if at all present" need not find mentioning in the definition of poetry. No accidental
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
